Is there any legal principle that prevents Comcast from using this to determine the number and size of pets you have, and then selling that data to, say, apartment management companies, HOAs, and municipal code-compliance departments that have restrictions/fines on number/size of pets?

"Find out how we help our partners in large urban markets increase their citation revenues by 19.7%!"
And then Comcast gets 3% of the deposit/fee/citation as profit-sharing, exactly like the red-light camera companies.

Your beliefs are not relevant to this subthread, where the original statement was "this [case] shows... Thomas was deep in the hands of telecoms".
You don't have to read everything he writes to make a comment on this case, but you do have to read he writes about this case in order to make a comment on this case. Or at least, to make a comment that is useful/relevant.

You don't think Google's B2B divisions are interested in selling AI-powered BookingasaService, GateCapacityManagementasaService, MaintenanceSchedulingasaService, FlightCrewPayMinimizationasaService, etc. to other transportation companies?

For example, on August 18th there's an email/message from AnonymisedSpiritEmployee_0175034 saying, "Thanks for the cupcakes today and to everyone who contributed to my birthday gift card to Benihana! My husband and I eat there every month for date night. Yummy!"

From one message you have birthdate, probable gender, marital status, and spending activity which can be trivially cross-referenced against existing data collation from all kinds of other sources. Sources that Google also owns.

That is not, in fact, their entire complaint. It isn't even part of their complaint, because there was in fact no "case" to lose. (Which is, as it happens, their actual complaint.)

Reading the actual Supreme Court ruling is the first, necessary step toward understanding the Supreme Court ruling.

After you read the entire ruling - including the full text of his dissent - which parts of his reasoning do you believe to be insincere, or which prior precedents do you believe he applied inaccurately?

"The void" is what we used to call actual community.
Before social media, we had social humans.

Now all we're left with is media - a commercial property.
This is exactly how every invasive species works.
Infiltrate and supplant.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
Etc.

Spotify has a financial incentive to speed up AI slop.
Enshittification via internal Payola:

1) Spotify does not pay rights-holders on a per-play basis. They pay on a percentage-of-the-total-pool basis.
2) If you and all your friends listen only to real music made by real humans, Spotify has to pay a larger percentage of the pool to those real humans.
3) Lots of people are now using AI to generate music and spam it in every streaming service for attention/revenue/etc.
4) You and all your friends can be gradually habituated - via the algo/feed's suggestions and promotional behavior - to not pay attention to the music creators because you're not as connected to an artist as people were 10 years ago, you're just passively listening to the platform's feed. So true artists/craftsmen get a smaller percentage of the pool and can't make as much, which puts them at a distinct competitive disadvantage with the AI prompt-engineers. Spotify will pay out a bit less in total, but still have to cut checks to outside parties.
5) Next, once you and all your friends are habituated to accept the endless feed of AI slop, Spotify can start producing its own slop to compete with the slop they exploited to get you to expect slop.
6) Spotify can then gradually promote/suggest their own AI slop, pushing out the previous generation of AI slop. Now, a larger and larger percentage of what Spotify streams is self-owned, so the total pool of potential royalties might stay the same or even grown, but real human artists are getting 0.5% of the pool, while 99.5% of the pool is money Spotify can now keep entirely to itself.
7) Congrats - now Spotify can claw back all the content-creation revenue for itself!

True. Cars are much worse than cell phones in this regard.
The tech industry has been doing this for a few decades, so we all know exactly how this is going to go:

1. Be a car manufacturer.
2. Use proprietary software on your products.
3. Make sure government-regulated (air quality, fuel efficiency, battery management, safety) features are entangled with your proprietary advertising/snooping/liability-limiting software.
4. Lobby to get the laws written so that devices aren't allowed to operate unless they have version_XYZ of the air quality, efficiency, battery, safety software.
5. EOL that version of your software so people literally cannot drive the cars they own without violating the law.
6. PROFIT as you finally destroy the used car market and move everyone to MaaS - MobilityasaService.

I think the context is implied - play songs you haven't heard before on Spotify. It definitely has your Spotify listening history.

Muchisimas gracias.

Al colaborar en estos comentarios, tú y yo hemos ilustrado perfectamente el punto. Si nuestros comentarios estuvieran en idiomas diferentes, no podríamos llegar a un entendimiento compartido porque ninguno de los dos podría entender lo que dice el otro. Ahora, gracias a la tecnología, podemos pulsar un botón y traducir instantáneamente las palabras a nuestro propio idioma. Pero incluso en el mismo idioma, claramente no compartimos un entendimiento. Para crear un entendimiento compartido de esta conversación harán falta múltiples respuestas de ida y vuelta para explicar mejor nuestras perspectivas y avanzar hacia un terreno común. Mientras tanto, el terreno común de un idioma compartido está ahora fácilmente disponible para cualquiera con conexión a internet.

La traducción es trivial. Ya no es "la principal barrera en la comunicación interpersonal". Encontrar un lenguaje común puede hacerlo con una máquina tonta. Encontrar un significado común solo puede ser logrado por la mente humana.

Is this the result of a Third Party Loophole like the government buying data it could not legally get a warrant for?

What I wonder is-- yes, we retain the copyright for images even after we publish them. However, as your last sentence points out, if we sign Meta's TOS, then in this scenario it isn't the other users out there who are potentially infringing our copyright by using our published works. The use being discussed in this article is a Meta tool performing Meta manipulation on Meta-hosted images that we have marked as public and also through the TOS have given Meta license to reuse, distribute, incorporate into training data, and directly manipulate with Meta's genAI, etc.

So, yeah, some other person who lacks a license may be the one clicking the button to enter the prompt "put a Super Mario moustache and overalls on my best friend's public wedding pic", but that other person isn't doing any of the manipulation. They are simply using a Meta function. Meta is the one manipulating your pics and publishing the new derivative work - which you have expressly agreed to allow Meta to do. And those are separate transactions.

Hard disagree.

The main barrier in interpersonal communication is psychological, not linguistic. It only seems like language barriers are huge because for millennia we lacked the technology to do so. Word translation at a basic effective level can now be automated trivially. It's just substituting one set of morphemes/phonemes for another. The morphemes/phonemes have no value on their own. They're merely pointers to an array of possible meanings. Words happen at the physical sensory layer - sound vibration, lines on paper, hand signs. But meaning, ahhh there's the rub. Meaning happens inside a thinking mind. Even within any one language, say, English, these words I'm writing are merely another translation layer mediating between whatever Meaning is inside my mind and whatever Meaning is inside your mind. Auto-translation between languages is just another iteration of the way language provides an automatic translation between individuals with our separate minds.

For example, this post itself. I get your point, and you're correct in a sense, but even though we speak the same language, I significantly disagree with the ultimate meaning of your statement. Those conceptual differences are inside me and inside you, and are hard to surmount even within the same language. ...from whence almost all politics and culture and war and hatred and resentment and divorce and strife derive.

No one can agree or disagree with this decision if they don't know the decision.

Anyone commenting on SCOTUS rulings without themselves reading the full text of the ruling, any additional concurring opinions, and all filed dissenting opinions, should not be listened to. They are no different than a dumb LLM outputting a repackaged salad of things they've heard others say, without actually encountering and understanding the tangible reality.

Your favorite blog can't be trusted to get it right.
Your favorite reddit can't be trusted to get it right.
Your favorite news channel can't be trusted to get it right.
Your informal tribal network of FaceTokGramXBsky mutuals can't be trusted to get it right.
Your favorite AI summarizer can't be trusted to get it right.

YOU need to read the actual text, which contains the actual arguments (and supporting citations) of the various justices.

Want more for yourself and your brief animal existence than merely being a repeater node in someone else's meme mesh.
Want more for yourself than being indistinguishable from an LLM that faithfully outputs Outrage_Text_XYZ whenever the forces of civilization prompt you with Outrage_Trigger_XYZ.